W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 1997

RE: New Requirements Draft

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 12:49:29 -0700
Message-ID: <11352BDEEB92CF119F3F00805F14F485037BC1F8@RED-44-MSG.dns.microsoft.com>
To: "'Andre van der Hoek'" <andre@bigtime.cs.colorado.edu>
Cc: (wrong string) ürst'" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>, "'Judith Slein'" <slein@wrc.xerox.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
We can't have a conversation where everyone is using the same word to
mean different things. I have defined what the term variant means in
HTTP. If you use the word variant, in a HTTP working group, it is
expected that you will use it to mean what it means in HTTP. If you are
referring to a concept other than the one meant by HTTP, please use
another term.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Andre van der Hoek [SMTP:andre@bigtime.cs.colorado.edu]
> Sent:	Wednesday, August 27, 1997 12:38 PM
> To:	Yaron Goland
> Cc:	'Andre van der Hoek'; 'Martin J. Dürst'; 'Judith Slein';
> w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject:	Re: New Requirements Draft 
> > In so far as I am concerned a variant is simply "yet another
> version"
> > and requires no special handling outside of the normal versioning
> > mechanisms.
> And the body of literature I just pointed you to says exactly the
> opposite: 
> variants handling requires special constructs and variants are not
> "simply 
> just another version".
> > As for your assertion Andre, that if web sites had proper variant
> tools
> > they would use them, this would contradict your previous statement
> that
> > variant support is widespread through versioning systems. Most major
> > versioning systems hook directly into the Internet, so apparently
> > variant support isn't so terribly important.
> No contradiction whatsoever. There are namely two ways CM systems hook
> into 
> the web:
>    * they have some applet or HTTP FORMS thingy that allows their CM
> policy to
>      be enforced. This is totally orthogonal to what WebDAV is trying
> to do.
>    * they manage a set of web pages by some simple extension to the
>      mechanism. Given the limited power of URL's, variants handling is
> totally
>      out of the question (and so are lots of other CM processes etc).
> Thus, the problem of making variants explicit in HTTP, and adding it
> as a 
> primitive to the protocol has not been solved yet, and that is what
> WebDAV 
> should be addressing.
> > Let us be clear on the issue, variant supports means creating
> mechanisms
> > which allow for a client to instruct a server on how it should
> handle
> > accept headers. I believe this to be a server configuration issue
> and
> > out of scope for WebDAV.
> Well, this is your opinion. I believe Judith, Martin, and I have a
> compeltely different definition of variants, and I believe WebDAV
> should at least address the issues we raise.
> === Andre ===
Received on Wednesday, 27 August 1997 15:50:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:16 UTC